

,^7^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DODOm^bSHE 



HOLUNGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



E 423 
.075 
Copy 1 



f^^^fi^^^r 



SPEECH 



OF THE 



HON. JAMES L. OEE, 



OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 



ON THE 




o SLAVERY QUESTION. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 8, 1850. 



WASHINGTON: 

FRINTED BY JNO. T. TOWERS. 

1850. 



^* x^ > 






W 



.1^3^?^ 



SPEECH 






^ 



:-JAMES L. ORR, OF SOUTH CAROLIM, 

ON THE 

SLAVERY QUESTION. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 8, 1850. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of 
the Union, on the President's Message transmitting the Consti- 
tution of California — 

Mr. ORRsaid: 

Mr. Chairman : I propose, in the brief hour allotted to me, to 
examine and present what I conceive to be Northern sentiment 
upon the subject of slavery, and the inevitable results of that 
sentiment. I believe, sir, there is much misunderstanding, both 
at the North and the South, as to the extent and character of that 
feeling. I know the misapprehension that exists in that part of 
the country which I have the honor to represent, and I desire to 
lay before my constituents and the people of the South the re- 
sult of my observations since I have been a member of this House, 
so that they may be prepared to judge of the proper means of 
meeting, counteracting, and repelling that sentiment. 

The first evidence of abolition sentiment in the Northern States 
to which I refer, is to be found in the numerous abolition societies 
organized in every part of that section of the Union, composed of 
large numbers of individuals of all classes and sexes. These 
societies meet at stated periods, for the avowed purpose of ad- 
vancing their political and moral tenets ; they appoint their emis- 
saries, who traverse the country, and who, by their slanders, poi- 
son the minds of the masses of their people as to the true charac- 
ter of the institution of slavery. They have established newspa- 
pers and periodicals, which are circulated in great profusion, not 
only in the non-slaveholding States, but are thrown broadcast 
over the South, through the mails, for the purpose of planting the 
thorn of discontent in the bosoms of our now happy slaves, and 
inciting them to the perpetration of the bloody scenes of St. Do- 
mingo. These auxiliaries of the American Anti-slavery Society, 
not content with a general combination against the institutioi>s of 



the S'outh, form a component part of the American and Foreign 
Anti-slavery Society, in which they unite with the zealots of fo- 
reign countries in an unjust crusade against their brethren of the 
South. Most of the avowed abolitionists have, however, the 
merit of frankness at least. They seek to emancipate our slaves, 
it is true, but concede that it cannot be done consistently with the 
Constitution ; they therefore declare an uncompromising war 
against the Constitution and the Union ; while others, who intend 
to effect the same end, have not the candor to own it, and hypo- 
critically profess an attachment to the Constitution which they 
are really seeking to destroy. 

Another evidence of the extent of abolition sentiment in the 
Northern States is, the promotion of certain gentlemen to seats in 
the other wing of this Capitol. I allude, sir, first to the election 
of Wm. H. Seward. It might be that this " faction," as the Abo- 
litionists have been denominated, could, through their societies 
and conventions, create some attention, and excite the contempt 
of sensible, moderate men, for their fanaticism ; but I would in- 
quire, how comes it to pass that, insignificant as it is said to be, it 
is enabled to elect from the great State of New York — the Em- 
pire State — a man to represent it in the Senate of the United 
States, whose greatest distinction has been his untiring advocacy 
of the doctrines of abolition ? Does it not show that the major 
part of the people of that State sympathize deeply with their 
Senator in his nefarious principles ? Look at the recent election, 
by the Legislature of Ohio — a State in numbers second only to 
New York — of S. P. Chase, to represent that State in the Senate 
of the United States. He has been amongst the most zealous of 
all his infatuated compeers : even Wm. H. Seward was not more 
so, in the advocacy of radical abolition, and the Legislature of 
Ohio, knowing his sentiments, and representing the people of that 
State, have honored him with one of the highest official stations 
on earth. Others, too, have been elected to that body, who owe 
their promotion to pledges given their constituents, that they 
would oppose the admission of any more slave States or slave 
territory into the Union, and favor the application of the Wilmot 
proviso — that true scion from an abolition stock — to the territo- 
ries acquired from Mexico. One would suppose that when a 
Senator avowed that, acting as a Senator, he recogni'^ed a higher 
obligation than his oath to support the Constitution of the United 
States — an obligation which requires him to violate and set aside 
the provisions of that sacred instrument — the Legislature of his 
State, then in session, would have promptly branded such a decla- 
ration with the infamy it deserves. Such a declaration, it is 
known to the country, was recently made in the Senate by the 
Senator from New York to whom I have alluded — but the Legis- 
lature of that State adopted no resolutions condemnatery of this 
sentiment. 



They did, however, pass resolutions, with great unanimity, 
•sustaining fully the utra positions of their distinguished — no, their 
notorious Senator. Resolutions have been adopted in every non- 
slaveholding State, instruoting their Senators and requesting their 
Representatives in Congress to vote in favor of the adoption of 
the Wilmot proAuso, and in opposition, in many cases, to the ad- 
mission of any other slave States. 

Mr. McLanahan asked if the gentleman from South Carolina 
had observed that the Legislature of Pennsylvania had recently 
laid upon the table resolutions in favor of the Wilmot proviso? 

Mr. Orr. I have ; and I honor tlie patriotism of your consti- 
tuents in coming to the rescue of the Constitution in these perilous 
times. Instructions, such as I have spoken of, did pass the Le- 
gislature of Pennsylvania two years ago. I repeat the assertion, 
that every non-slaveholding State has passed resolutions of an un- 
mistakable abolition character. Yet the unceasing efforts of the 
press here, and of newspaper correspondents, are directed to induce 
the people of the South to believe that this hostility to our insti- 
tutions is confined to a few fanatics, and that abolition is not the 
general sentiment of the country. 

Another evidence of the progress of abolition sentiment is the 
legislation of the non-slaveholding States obstructing the deliver- 
ing up of fugitive slaves^ What is the constitutional provision 
upon that subject ? " No person held to service or labor in one 
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in con- 
sequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of 
the party to whom such service or labor may be due." Some of 
.the Northern States have passed laws imposing heavy penalties 
on any State officer who may aid the owner in recovering his 
runaway slave. The State officers of all the States swear to 
support the Constitution of the United States as well as the Con- 
stitution of the State in which the officer resides. Now, if the 
Constitution of the United vStates requires that a person held to 
service shall be delivered up, and a State officer refuses to obey 
that provision, does he prove faithful to his oath I And is not the 
penalty imposed by the particular State a compulsion upon the 
officer to commit perjury? This legislation reflects truly the 
feeling of the Northern States upon this subject. When a slave 
•escapes, friends receive him with open arms, and. clandestinely 
convey him beyond the reach of his lawful owner. If the slave, 
perchance, is overtaken, or hunted out of his secret hiding place, 
the owner perils his life, through the lawless violence of the mob, 
in reclaiming his property and in asserting rights solemnly guar- 
antied to him by the Constitution. The laws and popular tumults 
against the master, to which I have adverted, clearly indicates the 
settled, deliberate purpose of the Northern States to deprive us of 
our rights in that specie^ of property. 



6 

Northern sentiment on the subject of abolition speaks trampet- 
tongaed in the political privileges conferred on free negroes in 
some of the Northern States. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont^. 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York, all extend the right 
of suffrage to the African. At the last State election in New 
York the free negroes held the balance of power between the 
two political parties. Representatives upon this floor receive the 
votes of this degraded class, and the success of republican insti- 
tutions is made to depend upon the judgment and intelligence of 
the free negro sovereigns. The aim of the abolitionists looks 
first to the emancipation of our slaves throughout the vSouth, and 
then is to follow their elevation to all the social and political 
privileges of the white man. The thick-lipped African is to 
march up to the same ballot-box, eat at the same table, and sit 
in the same parlor with the white man. This, the Abolitionists 
would say, "is a consummation devoutly to be wished for," 

Another evidence, sir, of the progress and intolerance of this 
sentiment is to be found in the separation of two of the most 
numerous and respectable Christian denominations in this country,, 
(the Baptist and the Methodist.) They assembled in convention 
and conference, year after year, to advance that holy cause in 
which they had mutually embarked. But, sir, the demon of 
fanatical discord stalked into their associations ; Christian charity 
and brotherly love were impotent in resisting its encroachment 
upon their peace and union; Northern members demanded that their 
Southern brethren should surrender and eschew the institutions 
of the country in which they lived — that they should become 
traitors to the State to which their allegiance was due, and prove 
recreant to their obligations to the community in which they 
resided. They were too holy to commune at the same altar with 
their Southern brethren, until the latter should pronounce slavery 
a sin, and agree to enlist in an effort for its extinction. The terms 
were too ignominious for Christians or patriots. With a manly 
independence, the Southern wing of both denominations rejected 
the offer, and the separation of their churches ensued. These two, 
sir, were heavy blows against our political union, from the shocks 
of which we have not yet recovered. 

Another evidence of the extent of this sentiment is exhibited in 
the popularity, the universal popularity, of the doctrine of free soil 
— the legitimate scion, as I before remarked, of the abolition 
stock. The popularity of that doctrine is not to bejudged by the 
independent free-soil party organization. Those who candidly 
avow the opinion are few in number ; they refuse to co-operate 
with either of the other parties, and hence a separate organiza- 
tion ; but the mass of the Northern people comprising the two 
great political parties sympathize in sentiment and feeling with 
the free-soilers. It is idle to disguise the fact. The speeches 
delivered by Northern Representatives syice the commencement of 



this discussion is a thorough vindication of the truth of this asser- 
tion. They may be well arranged in two classes, one of which 
broadly asserts that the North has been guilty of no aggression 
upon the South — that the South has no just cause of complaint 
against them — that our demand to share equally in the common 
property of all the States is an aggression upon the North — that 
our fugitive slaves are always promptly surrendered upon the 
demand of the owner. This is the language addressed by them 
to Northern constituencies ; they do not appeal to them to quiet 
this infamous agitation — they do not remind them of their consti- 
tutional obligations ; and thus their course can have no other 
effect than to fan the flames of fanaticism until they shall burn 
out the vitals of the Constitution and Union. 

The other class show equally, in their speeches, their attachment 
to the doctrines of free soil. Every Northern man of this class 
who has addressed the committee on this subject, except my friend 
from Indiana, [Mr. Gorman,] and my friend from Pennsylvania, 
[Mr. Ross,] is in the same category. Their speeches open, gen- 
erally, with a violent philippic against the South. They charge 
us with arrogance, and some of them are in hot haste in volun- 
teering their services to march troops into our midst to force us 
to continue in the Union if we should choose to secede from it. 
They tell us that they are in favor of non-intervention. What 
does this non-intervention amount to ? If it were a bona fide non- 
interference with our rights, it would be all that the South could 
ask — all that she has a right to demand under the Constitution. 
But this much she does demand ; and, depend upon it, she will be 
appeased by nothing less. Some of the Northern non-interven- 
tionists deny that Congress has the power to pass the Wilmot 
proviso ; others maintain the position that Congress has the power, 
but should not exercise it, and straightway offer the excuse to 
their constituents that it is not necessary to pass it — that the 
Mexican laws are in force, and they exclude slavery. This is the 
opinion entertained by General Cass and all the non-intervention 
northern Democrats in this House. Is not this a heavy tribute 
which non-intervention pays to free-soil? It is tantamount to 
saying, we are in favor of the end which the proviso aims to ac- 
complish, viz : the exclusion of the slave States from all the terri- 
tory acquired from Mexico — we oppose its adoption only because 
we regard it as unnecessary, and because we believe the course 
we propose to pursue will most effectually subserve the end with- 
out giving offence and producing irritation in the South. I repeat 
it, sir, such non-intervention pays a heavy tribute to abolitionism. 

Another, and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the most pregnant indica- 
tion of the progress of abolition sentiment, is the remarkable con- 
dition of things that now exists throughout the country in relation 
to the admission of California into the Union. I venture to say 
that never in the history of this Government has any important 



question been presented for the consideration of Con^'ess wtere 
party lines were all broken down as they have been on this ques- 
tion. It is an Administration measure — one which certainly re- 
flects but little credit upon its wisdom or patriotism. Parties 
have but recently emerged from the heat of a presidential struggle, 
and upon all other questions, save this alone, which have been in- 
troduced into this House at the present session, partisan gladiators 
have waged as fierce a contest as in days of yore. Irregular and 
objectionable as all the California proceedings have been, but one 
solitary Representative (I refer again to my friend Mr. Ross) from 
the free States has avowed himself opposed to its admission into 
the Union ; parties are broken down — the North is making it a 
sectional question. Northern Whigs and Northern Democrats, 
Whig Free-Soilers and Democratic Free-Soilers all rally upon this 
common platform, and the emulation between them is great who 
shall be foremost in introducing this embryo State into the Union. 
Some of the objections to its admission into the Union I will briefly 
notice. No census had been taken either by the authority of the 
pretended State or by the authority of Congress. We have no 
official information which would authorize us to determine whether 
the population was ten thousand or one hundred thousand. The 
number of votes said to have been polled in the ratification of the 
constitution was about thirteen thousand. This number of voters, 
where the population is an average one, would indicate a popu- 
lation of seventy thousand souls. The proportion of the adult 
male population in California is greater by far than in the States, 
comparatively few women or children having emigrated thither. 
If the number of votes polled be adopted as the criterion by which 
the population is to be adjudged, it could not have exceeded, at 
the date of the ratification of the constitution, forty thousand ; 
and, with these facts. Congress is importuned to admit California 
with two Representatives, with a less population of American 
citizens than each member on this floor represents. 

Then as to its boundaries, they contain sufficient territory to 
make five large States, and embrace a sea-coast of more than 
eight hundred miles. 

The convention which framed the constitution was not called 
by authority of Congress, but by a military officer, who, by vir- 
tue of the commission he held under the Government of the Uni- 
ted States, exercised the functions of civil governor. His ukase 
directed that the convention should consist of thirty-seven mem- 
ber. After the convention was elected, it assembled, and, by a 
vote for which it had no authority, not even from the military 
dictator, it increased the number of delegates from thirty-seven to 
seventy-nine, and allowed the additional number, without refer- 
ring it to the people, to take their seats, they being the defeated 
candidates at the election. In my judgment it was the duty of 
the President to have censured the officer who thus exercised the 



9 

high prerogative of military dictator. If the President had desired 
to carry out the will of Congress according to his pledges, that 
officer could not have escaped punishment, for Congress at its last 
session positively refused to allow the people of California to do 
that which the military governor, by a military order or procla- 
tion, bearing striking analogies to an order, instructed them to do. 

Who are the people of California ? A world in miniature — the 
four quarters of the globe are represented there. No naturaliza- 
tion laws having been passed, there was no legal impediment to 
their exercising the right of suffrage. The whole proceeding — 
not having the consent of Congress, the rightful legislature of the 
territory — was illegal and revolutionary. I repeat, Mr. Chair- 
man, that with all these irregularities we find every party in Con- 
gress from the Northern States in favor of the admission of Cali- 
fornia into the Union — and why ? For no other reason than that 
slavery has been excluded by her constitution. If her people had 
assembled under lawful authority, with an ascertained population 
equal to the present ratio of representation, they alone would 
have had the power to determine the question whether slavery 
should or should not exist within her limits. If that decision had 
been to exclude slavery, no murmur of complaint would have been 
heard from any Southern man ; but I undertake to say here, if 
slavery had been tolerated, we should have found just as unani- 
mous a sentiment in the Northern States against her admission 
into the Union as we now find in favor of that proposition ; and 
I do not make this assertion without good foundation. When 
Florida applied for admission into the Union, a large minority in 
Congress voted against it, when every initiatory step had been 
regular, on the isolated ground that she was a slaveholding State. 

I have other evidences, Mr. Chairman, of Northern sentiment 
upon the subject of slavery. The speech recently delivered by the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) and 
the action of the House in laying upon the table the resolution of 
the gentleman from Ohio, in the early part of the session, has in- 
duced the belief in the South that a sense of justice had returned 
to their Northern brethren. These appearances are deceptive. It 
is an illusion which I deeply deplore. The Senator from Massa- 
chusetts made a truly patriotic speech ; but what did he propose? 
All that he ofiered was, to give to the South her clearly-defined 
constitutional rights. This gratified us. It gratified us to know 
that a distinguished Northern man would frankly and ingenuous- 
ly concede our rights, and enforce their execution by his vote and 
voice. How has that speech been received in the State of Mas- 
sachusetts, of which he is the proudest ornament 1 Her legisla- 
ture was in session ; and fearing lest that speech might contain 
the balm to heal the divisions of the country, straightway new 
poison was poured into the wound. Resolutions were passed, ta- 
king the strongest and most oftensive ground. They did not in- 



10 

struct him, it is true, for the dominant party do not assume the 
right to instruct ; but that Senator hasi^not been sustained by his 
immediate constituents. A few have endorsed his sentiments, 
but a large majority of the people and of the press of Massachu- 
setts have condemned him. He has not been more fortunate here — 
one after another of the Massachusetts delegation has addressed 
the committee, all assuming positions adverse to those taken by 
Mr. Webster. The only hope of aid in this House took its de- 
parture to-day, when the honorable gentleman who preceded me 
(Mr. WiNTHROp) announced himself in favor of General Taylor's 
unstatesmanlike plan of settling the existing difficulties. Daniel 
Webster once spoke and could speak for New England. The waves 
of fanaticism have broken over the land of the Pilgrim Fathers, and 
are sweeping off the influence and power of her best and bright- 
est men. When his genius has proved itself impotent to stay this 
onward wave in the minds of those whose service he has so much 
honored, upon what ground can the South rest her hopes of peace 
and safety in this Government ? 

The action of the House in laying Root's resolution upon the 
table promised fruits which will never be gathered. If the pro- 
viso is not pressed at the present session, it will not be because 
the North have abated one tittle in their devotion to it. The ad- 
vocates of that measure are satisfied they will accomplish their 
purpose quite as effectually, and much more adroitly, in another 
way. 

But, sir, there is still further evidence of Northern sentiment. 
We have been told by one gentleman, in this debate, " that the 
only way in which the abolition of slavery in the States can be 
constitutionally effected, is to confine it within its present limits ;" 
another said, " that no more slave States or slave Territory should 
come into this Union — sooner civil war," &c.; another, " the Wil- 
mot proviso was an abiding principle in the hearts of the people 
of the free States ;" and still another, who is a moderate Northern 
man, " that slavery was a national shame and a national dis- 
grace." I quote these sentiments that they may be contrasted 
with the oft-reiterated assertion, that it is not the purpose of the 
Northern States to abolish slavery where it now exists. They tell 
us plainly they can effect abolition in the States, through the le- 
gislation of this Government, without violating the Constitution ; 
and they admit, further, that they will do it by indirect means, 
but their constitutional scruples forbid direct legislation in abol- 
ishing slavery. 

Now, sir, I have a great contempt for the morality or honesty 
of that sort of reasoning which would make an act unconstitu- 
tional if executed directly, but satisfies the conscience that it is 
constitutional if done indirectly. 

The institution of slavery being a " national shame and a na- 
tional disgrace" in the opinion of the North, and having the 



11 

power to abolish it by indirect means, the legislation of this Go- 
vernment (for the North have the majority) is to be hostile to our 
institutions. We then present this anomoly, that a Government 
established by wise and patriotic men for the security and safety 
of the persons and property of all its parts — a Government M^hich 
derives its sustenance by taxation upon all its parts, is to depart 
so far from the purposes of its creation as to destroy, by its hostile 
legislation, the property of one-half of the States composing that 
Government ; and that, too, when the States thus threatened are 
in such a hopeless minority in Congress that they are unable to 
protect themselves against that hostile, unconstitutional legisla- 
tion. The value of our slave property is some sixteen hundred 
millions of dollars : this is to be destroyed through a majority. 

The rule for construing the Constitution, which is fast lieing es- 
tablished, is, that the majority have the right to rule, and what- 
ever construction they give is the true construction. Such, Mr. 
Chairman, is not our reading or construction of that instrument. 
The Constitution is to protect the rights of minorities ; majorities 
have always the ability to protect themselves. If they have the 
absolute right of making and construing, then there is no neces- 
sity for a written Constitution. If the will of the majority is ab- 
solute, it is the strong against the weak — the law of force which 
existed between individuals before Governments was instituted. 
If the power now claimed for the Northern States is persevered 
in, it requires no spirit of prophecy to forsee that it must end in 
disunion. The institution of slavery is so intimately interwoven 
with societ}^ and is so indispensable to our social, political, and 
national prosperity, that it will not be surrendered so long as there 
is a Southern hand to strike in its defence. We intend to pre- 
serve and perpetuate it. We have another demand, and that is, 
that we shall be allowed to enjoy our property in peace, quiet, 
and security. I tell Northern gentlemen to-day, that five years 
will not elapse before they will be required to make their choice 
between non-intervention and non-agitation through Congress on 
the one hand, and a dissolution of this Government on the other ; 
and I tell Southern people, if this agitation is continued during 
that time, their peace and personal security w^ll require them to 
choose between secession and negro emancipation. Sir, I do not 
desire to be considered an alarmist ; but if gentlemen will recur 
to the history of the country, they will learn that the anti-slavery 
party was contemptible and insignificant, but it has now grown 
to be a great colossal power, overshadowing almost the entire 
North, and has enlisted under its banner all the political parties 
there. If its progress is as rapid in the next five years as for the 
last ten, you will find no Northern Representative who will so far 
outrage the sentiment of his constituents as to oppose even the 
abolition of slaverj^ in the States. 



12 

I will here digress, Mr, Chairman, to reply to a complaint which 
has been urged by several Northern gentlemen, charging that the 
South has for a series of years occupied the Federal offices. On 
reference to the past, it will be found to be true that the South 
has held a larger share of the prominent offices of the Government 
than those of the North. I am able to give a satisfactory reason 
for this fact, and to show whence it arises. When a Southern man 
enters into public life, he is brought in by the party to which he 
is attached, and he is continued in office, if he be a faithful repre- 
sentative, so long as his party continues in the ascendency, or until 
he chooses voluntarily to retire. In the North a different rule pre- 
vails — rotation in office is the recognised system with all parties. 
The rule may be a correct one in offices of profit merely, but when 
applied to representatives, either State or Federal, the constituent 
can never be so well represented. Southern men re nain longer 
in Congress ; they have therefore better opportunities for the de- 
velopment of their genius and talent, and their experience gives 
them the advantage over abler men who are without experience ; 
their services become more conspicuous ; and when individuals 
are selected for prominent stations in the Government, they are 
placed there because they have more national reputation. But 
Northern gentlemen, whilst they have observed this fact, with 
some manifestations of jealousy, forget that nearly three-fourths 
of the public expenditures of this Government fall into the Northern 
lap. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Harris] denied, for the 
first time, as I believe, this statement, and went into a minute ex- 
amination for the purpose of showing that the South had received 
more than her proportiate share of those expenditures. He ob- 
tained the services of an experienced clerk in making the calcula- 
tion, and he reports that in a period of ten years, out of nineteen 
millions for local appropriations, nine millions have been given to 
the South, while only ten millions have gone to the North. The 
clerk has committed a palpable blunder, and I wonder that he has 
not been guillotined ere this for incompetency or infidelity. Only 
nineteen millions of dollars expended on local objects during a 
period of ten years ! The gentleman from Illinois hurries to the 
census of 1840, to learn there that this appropriation gives to every 
white person in the North $1 02, and at the South $1 90. I pro- 
pose to advert to a few items only, which I suppose the clerk did 
not embrace in his calculations. They will show which section 
of the Union has foraged most liberally from the public treasury. 
The expenditure for pensions up to 1838 amounted in the Northern 
States to $28,000,000;* in the Southern States to $7,000,000. 
New York contributed to the support of the revolutionary war 
$7,179,983, and had received in 1838, in pensions, $7,850,054. 

* I am indebted to the author of a pamphlet entitled "The Union, past and future — 
how it works, and how to save it," for many of these statistics. 



13 

The public lands donated by Congress to the Northern States have 
been worth $7,584,899 ; the same in the South $4,025,000. Since 
the establishment of the Government, the cost of collecting the 
customs has been $53,000,000 ; $43,000,000 expended in the North, 
and $10,000,000 in the South. Bounties on pickled fish, &c., in 
the North, exclusively, $10,000,000. The forts on the Northern 
coast have cost, on each mile, $838 ; on the Southern coast $535 
per mile. In 1846 there was one light-house to every fifty miles 
of Northern coast ; whilst in the South there was one for every 
two hundred and seventy-six miles. The expenditures for internal 
improvements from 1824 to 1833, in the North, was ."^5,194,441 ; 
in the South $957,000. From 1834 to 1845, for the same purpose, 
in the North, $7,231,639 ; and in the South $l,171,.50O. 

This much, sir, with reference to what the gentleman said about 
appropriations. I propose now to examine so much of the same 
gentleman's speech as to the relative number of troops furnished by 
the North and the South in the late war with Mexico. I adopt 
his figures, and assume them to be correct. The South furnished 
47,649 volunteers ; the North 24,712. The gentleman says that 
this is not the fair way of making the calculation — that the 
amount of service rendered in months is "the fairest way of ma- 
king the calculation." His figures show that the South furnished 
service in months 365,500 months; the North 309,400. This still 
gives the South a preponderance. Not contented, however, with 
this result, he sets out upon a third series of figures, that he may 
give the North the superiority. This calculation includes all the 
enlistments made during the war, as also for the ten new regi- 
ments ; and assumes that two-thirds of these enlistments were 
from the North ; and when his calculation is footed up, the North 
furnished service equal to 813,648 months, and the South equal to 
627,625 months. Well, I go back to the census of 1840, and he, 
at least, can make no objection to the authority, having appeal- 
ed to this source in the first branch of his argument. I therefore 
take his figures, and reply with his authority. If the South fur- 
nished 47,049 volunteers, according to population the North should 
have furnished 98,148. They furnished 24,712— deficit of their 
just proportion 73,436. 

The South furnished service of volunteers in months equal to 
365,500 months. The North should have furnished service in 
months equal to 754,020 months ; they furnished 309,400— deficit 
of their just proportion 444,620. But if the enlistments are su- 
peradded to the above, it will be seen that the North furnished 
in months equal to 813,648; the South 627,625. The North 
should have furnished service in months 1,294,780 months — de- 
ficit of her just proportion 481,132. 

I enter into these calculations for the purpose, of vindicating 
the truth of the Southern Address — for the purpose of vindicating 
the truth of the allegations which have been made by Southern 



14 

members on this floor, that the South contributed more than her 
just proportion of troops in making the acquisitions from Mexico 
which the North mean to exclude us from, either through the 
Wilmot proviso or the ''non-intervention''^ policy, in connection 
with the pretence that the Mexican laws are in force. He went 
a little further, and introduced an estimate of the service by the 
North and the South in the Revolutionary war. He says, for the 
continental line of the Revolution, the North furnished 172,436 
men, and the South 59,335. 

It is known, Mr. Chairman, to every one who is familiar with 
the history of the Revolution, that a very large proportion of the 
troops that were engaged in that protracted and perilous contest 
were not connected with the continental army. If the gentleman 
had made an accurate examination of the number of troops fur- 
nished by each of the States, he would have found that Virginia 
alone furnished 66,721. Pennsylvania, with a population equal 
to Virginia, furnished 34,965 ; New York 29,836 ; South Carolina 
31,131. South Carolina sent thirty-seven out of every forty-two 
of her citizens capable of bearing arms, Massachusetts thirty-two, 
Connecticut thirty. New Hampshire eighteen. 

I will answer with statistical facts the delusion existing in the 
minds of some who believe that the pecuniary and social condi- 
tion is more elevated in the North than in the South. We have 
heard that Virginia was sinking — was falling fast into decay ; that 
her sisters have advanced in prosperity and wealth whilst she has 
been retrograding — all of which is attributed to her system 
of domestic servitude. Why, sir, this is but an assumption — 
a most unwarrantable assumption — because it has no foun* 
dation in fact. The abolitionists make their proselytes be- 
lieve that Virginia is in a most dilapidated state — that her 
forests have all been destroyed — the face of her fields fur- 
rowed with deep gullies — and that her low grounds have been 
exhausted by unskilful husbandry. Virginia has more wealth 
according to population than any one of the Northern States. 
The average wealth of each inhabitant, free and slave, is S471 ; 
or free alone, $741. In Kentucky the average wealth of each in- 
habitant, free and slave, is $319; whilst that of Ohio is but $227 ; 
Pennsylvania $219; New York $228. And, sir, the productions 
of the slaveholding States will compare favorably with the non* 
slaveholding. The advantage will be found to be largely on the 
side of the former in the value of those productions. The South 
produces more Indian corn, and the North more wheat ; but the 
South has a complete monopoly, b}'^ soil and climate, in the pro- 
duction of cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco. 

The value of these four crops the last j-ear exceeds $125,000,- 
000. But compare the productions of individual States. Michi- 
gan and Arkansas were admitted into the Union about the same 
time : Michigan is one of the most flourishing of the northwestern 



15 

States, washed on three sides by navigable waters, and enjoying 
an extensive system of internal improvements ; and her crops 
last year yielded to each inhabitant $31 ."^O. The crop of Arkan- 
sas yielded to each white inhabitant $101 ; and if the slaves are 
counted as persons, the value of the crop was $81 50 for each in- 
habitant : so that the production of Arkansas, with a fertile soil, 
though not a genial climate, nearly trebles that of Michigan. 

Mr. Chairman, I am admonished that my hour is drawing ra- 
pidly to its close ; I therefore return to the subject from which I 
digressed longer than I intended. Whether slavery be a sin or 
not, is a question with which this Government has nothing to do. 
It is recognised by the Constitution, and protected to the fullest 
extent. He who believes it sinful, therefore, and feels a moral 
duty devolving upon him to extirpate it, should candidly avow 
himself a disunionist, and seek to dissolve this supposed sinful al- 
liance. If, on the contrary, he is ready to abide by the Constitu- 
tion, in letter and spirit, then his warfare against slavery is end- 
ed — he must ground his arms, and cease to agitate. It is a mat- 
ter of indifference to us whether you consider slavery right or 
wrong ; we alone must be the judges of its blessings and its cur- 
ses. We do not complain of your abstract opinions upon that 
subject ; but it becomes a question of the profoundest interest to 
us, when you make your abstract opinions on the morality of the 
institution the basis of your political action. 

The abolition feeling in the North is foiinded in religious fa- 
naticism — its votaries, like fanatics in every age of the world, are 
guided neither by religion, morality, nor justice. The Scripture 
argument in favory of slavery is unanswerable ; but still argu- 
ment never reaches the understanding or conscience of the fa- 
natic. The history of the Crusades, which involved Europe in 
blood and carnage, well illustrates its folly and madness, when 
kings and nations vied vrith each other in their benevolent and 
Christian purpose of expelling the Infidels from the city of Jeru- 
salem. When the phrensy of madness sears the brain, reason, 
the great helm of human action, fails to control its motions ; and 
here is the great danger of abolition. The masses may be sin- 
cere ; but when they attempt to enforce, as they are now doing, 
a supposed moral obligation through political channels, without 
regard to the rights of others, or the supreme law of the land, 
cool-headed and discreet men must rise up in the majesty of their 
strength and crush it, or consent to give up our institutions, and 
be crushed by it. Fanaticism is not often sated until it has gorged 
itself with blood or ruin. 

The dangers to the Republic every patriot desires may be 
averted, and the union of these States preserved in its prestine 
purity. It is endeared to us by a thousand ties hallowed by the 
memories of the past, and excites in the mind emotions little short 
of veneration. I desire it to be preserved, but it must be preserved 




^^ 000 149' g^;;""'j 

in its purity, if it is worth preserving at all. That man is the 
disunionist who will trample down the Constitution and destroy 
the rights of the States. I have spoken plainly, sir, of the perils 
to which we are exposed. I know that my section of the Union 
is deceived and deluded as to the true situation of this controversy. 
They have cherished with abiding confidence the hope that their 
Northern brethren would cease their aggressions and do them 
justice. The events M^hich have transpired here, and to which I 
have adverted, (Webster's speech, and the laying of Root's resolu- 
tion on the table,) have added to the delusion. I warn them to rise 
from the lethargy into which they have been betrayed. I tell them 
now, in all candor, that I see no returning sense of justice in the 
North. They should appoint their delegates to the Nashville 
Convention : let them assemble there, ■ and deliberate upon the 
grave issues which abolition has presented — let them concen- 
trate the sentiment of the South, and lay such plans as will defeat 
the ends of abolitionists. Every Southern State should be fully 
represented there by her ablest Constitution-loving sons. That 
convention, sir, will meet, although it is probable that the confi- 
dent expectation of a compromise will prevent its being as nu- 
merously attended as it would have been some months back, the 
people believing that the necessity of its convening has passed 
away. I fear, sir, they have been deluded into the hope of com- 
promise, so industriously instilled into their minds for the purpose 
of defeating the Nashville Convention. That effort has been 
partially successful ; but the convention will nevertheless assemble, 
and the South will not readily forget those by whom they have 
been deceived. Sir, it has been fashionable to denounce that con- 
vention, and to disparage the purposes of those who called it. 
For one, I am not ashamed of that convention — nothing could 
make me ashamed of it, but the failure of the South, or of those 
with whom my honor is more immediately bound up, to attend it. 
The ends of that convention were high and holy ; it was called 
to protect the Constitution, to save the Union, by taking such steps 
as might prevent, if possible, the consummation of measures 
which would probably lead to the 'destruction of both. Had the 
purpose been disunion, those who called that convention would 
have waited until the irretrievable step had been taken, and 
nothing left to the South but submission or secession. The present 
is a critical conjuncture of political affairs ; there is a propriety, 
nay, almost a necessity, for Southern men to commune with each 
other. I, for one, wish that harmony may mark their deliberations, 
and that the result ol those deliberations may be worthy of the 
occasion and of the cause for which they will convene. 



HOLUNGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



